Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Gun control

2007-04-17T02:36:36Z

HSDad: /* VIRGINIA TECH */

Quote: "This right is a natural right which we are endowed by our Creator with, and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly recognizes this pre-existing natural right of individuals to own and carry tools useful for self-defense."

This assertion requires citation to comply with the Commandments, as, no matter how rational and obvious, it is a personal opinion. Additionally, it would be useful, and would strengthen the assertion, if a clearer explanation of the constitutional right to carry tools really exists, vis-a-vis pre-existing natural rights. If a constitutional scholar is available, it would be great if he could comment here, as the Second Amendment is of the utmost importance and we should support it more clearly.

:I agree, the wording of the Second Amendment is hardly explicit. Also, Jesus reprimanded Peter for trying to defend them with a sword, so whether our Creator wants us to defend ourselves with guns is debatable. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Besides: the "natural" sic for (inalienable?) right stems for the [[Declaration of Independence]] not from the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my version was more clear and accurate, but it's your site.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Second Amendment gives 'The People' - that is The American People (not persons as in individuals) the right to arm itself, specifically against the British who claimed sovereignty over the American People, forbidding them to bear arms except under the King.

Countries with gun control have fewer homicides, as do US states with gun control. And as Daniel B Douglas points out Jesus requires his followers to turn the other cheek: I certainly don't remember God asking us to arm ourselves to the teeth. KT

==Patriot Act==

Cut:
:Interestingly enough, the USA PATRIOT Act is another law that restricts liberties in the name of safety, yet those in favor of the PATRIOT ACT are often opposed to gun control.

What does "another law that restricts liberties" mean? Is it a "restriction" that any overseas phone call I make to a suspected terrorist will be monitored?

Where is the contradiction between wanted terrorists thwarted, and wanting to defend oneself against muggers and rapists? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== VIRGINIA TECH ==

So - is NOW a good time to discuss things like waiting periods (I beleive Virginia has none), conceal laws(Virginia lets you do that) and other such unpleasantries???? [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any time is a good time to help craft a balanced article presenting arguments for and against gun control laws. I have seen arguments on both sides enough to fill up several books.

:Can you boil it down to 2,000 words or less?

well, cars still kill wayyy more people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Uhm... So anything that kills less that cars per year should be legal to have and use? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::47,000 fatal car accidents per year in the U.S. versus around 1,000,000 non-fatal uses of guns in self-defense. I'd ban cars on that basis, but there's obviously much more to it. Do we have an article summarizing the findings of [[John Lott]], the statistician who wrote ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Question''': What happens if one of the students who was shot had a gun with which to defend himself? '''Answer''': there would be less people dead then there are now. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Question''': what happens if the murderer hadn't been able to get a gun? '''Answer''': there would be ''many'' less people dead then there are now. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Question''': Who are and who are not prevented from getting guns by gun control laws? '''Answer''': Law abiding citizens are prevented from getting guns and criminals are not. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 22:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'''Reply''' Regardless of what the laws are a criminal who wants a gun will be able to get one. Look an how effective (not very) the laws against illegal drugs are. gun control takes the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens but not the criminals. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::More likely he would use some other weapon to kill. Like run over someone with his car.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well they have so-called "motor-voter" laws that enable people who get driver's licenses to register to vote. Perhaps they could draft a "motor-toter" law, to issue every driver a handgun? Carjackings would go WAY down.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2007-04-16T18:36:30Z

HSDad: /* Yes */

{{debate-religion}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:By this logic, why isn't Judaism the best religion? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There are only two kinds of religion: '''''The true one and the false ones.''''' As a Christian, I beleive that christianity is the true one and is therefore superior. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Everyone believes their religion is true. Therein lies the conflict. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:''The true one and the false ones.'' - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: "Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that '''there is no God but one.'''" [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==No==

*That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine. --[[User:Helios|Helios]] 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-04-14T20:01:52Z

HSDad: /* la to ta and la-di-da */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

[[Talk:Bible/Archive 1|Archive 1]]

==What the serpent said==
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== la to ta and la-di-da ==

Karajou, when are you going to {{remove personal remark|crawl out of your arrogant ignorance and}} accept that your beloved Merrill Unger (or his typesetter) was wrong: ta is the neuter plural nominative definite article; biblia is plural of biblion and hence takes ta. You have been given sources, you have been given evidence, but like the disgraced prosecutor in the Duke case you insist on defining evidence in your own incomprehensible manner. {{remove personal remark|To top it off, you then attempt to pass yourself off as an expert in things of which your comprehension is negligible at best.}}

Your constant inane assertion that the bible was attacked not merely questioned points to your own immaturity, your inability to differentiate between gradation of meaning and the weakness of your faith. If you truly had faith, you would merely respond calmly to the questions {{remove personal remark|rather than acting like a psychotic on hallucinogens. Face it the littlest question bothers you because in the recesses of your sputtering hive-mind you know there may be truth in the questions. Essentially then, you are a coward: rather than face the issues, rather than face the uncertainties welling up like flood waters from the depths of your soul you repeat as a mantra biblical apologetics and bible verses and dogma.

I feel sorry for you. Pax scientiae tecum sit.}} [[User:Ulysses|Ulysses]] 07:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Allow me to chime in with sources:
:*http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/b/55
:*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bible (see the origin section)
:Both point at "ta biblia". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:12, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Ignoring the babyish rant above, I'm going to question the sources for two reasons: first, is the first one, which is from the LDS; the Mormon chuch has various differences between it's doctrine and what the Bible says (such will not be discussed here, but on a separate talk page on the subject with vaild sources backing it up); and the second reason is the fact that on the internet pages change as fast as one changes underwear. Since this subject ('la' or 'ta' biblia) has as it's basis the Greek and Latin languages, it would make sense to consult with those works, and unfortunately I insist on works from experts on the subject who have written for the sake of the language itself (in this case, I won't accept it if the author has written either for or against the Bible...this being for neutrality).

:It would have to be Greek since Latin has no definite article. I think though you might err in suspecting the LDS source: their doctrinal difference between their teachings and orthodox Christianity should have no bearing on whether it's la or ta.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::In this case, the language has to be clear. Someone could pull up the Latin or Greek text from Berlitz as published today, and the user of the language would have no problem navigating the streets of Athens, but the source material I'm implying would be the language of the first or second century A.D., so it would have to be an ancient or medieval language scholar that we'd have to go to. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::An example of change from the original to now is the word "Peter", which has come to mean "rock", as in Jesus proclamation of Peter's faith "Upon this ROCK I will build my church." The personal name ''Peter'' is related to the Spanish ''Pedro'', the Greek ''Petros'', and the Italian word ''Petri'', all of which mean ''stone''. The words ''petras'', ''petros'', and ''petra'', also in the above respective languages, mean ''rock''. For confirmation that ''Peter'' as being the ''rock'' is incorrect, you have to back to the Bible again, and John 1:42 specifically states ''And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him (Peter), he said "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas", which is by interpretation, a stone.'' ''Cephas'' is the Aramaic language word for ''stone''. The reason I'm saying this in light of ''ta'' or ''la biblia'' is I have stated in an article paragraph as to where the source of the word came from, and if it is incorrect, then I want the correct version there to replace it, provided one does the research into the language for the time and pulls it out. I used Unger's version from 1966 because he did do a lot of research into those times and languages. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::[http://seminariobogota.org/Biblia/biblia01.html enespanol] [[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 11:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=b&p=9| Here] is an online English resource. It's secular so it might not count.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html PBS] and [http://www.biblepath.com/bible_sbd.html another] source. I don't quite understand why you don't accept the dictionary.reference.com source, though. So far, everything seems to point at "ta biblia" - are you saying that they're all wrong? And why does the opening post keep vanishing? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::What is it about going to an authoritative expert on ancient languages that you cannot understand? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::One of my friends is Greek and knows Ancient Greek. I could just ask her tomorrow, but then you'd say that she's no authority or something. No source is good enough for you, admit it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry. I thought you wanted some input. I see. I'll just keep my mouth closed and refrain from posting on articles you're working on. Good day. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 13:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Agreed. This typo led to the banning of ''six'' people by now. Dangerous terrain. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::<big>'''Oh, I see you perma-banned the guy who made the opening post...'''</big> --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:::For "immature ranting". Somehow, I think kakajuju is the one frothing at the mouth that the Greeks should have used ''la'' as a definite article. @@ [[User:Skatos|Skatos]] 15:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-04-14T16:46:00Z

HSDad: Removed rude and disrespectful comments... FInd to post opposing opinions. Don't stoop to insults!

United States Army

2007-04-13T20:47:29Z

HSDad: Remove Objectionable Material and Replace with Something True and Factual.

A branch of the Armed Forces of the United States of America whose primary mission is to engage in land warfare as directed by the commander-in-chief (the President of the United States). The Army is the oldest branch of the Armed Forces. It is to the brave men who serve in the Army and the other branches (Navy, Air Force, Marines) that we owe much of the liberty and freedom we enjoy today.

Menstruation

2007-04-07T06:12:52Z

HSDad: Removed ridiculous content not accurate nor appropriate for this page.

Menstruation occurs at the end of a woman's menstrual cycle. The lining of the uterus is shed and expelled from the body. Menstruation occurs in humans and more developed apes, including [[gorillas]] and [[orangutans]] [http://www.4woman.gov/faq/menstru.htm#4].

[[Category:Biology]]

Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?

2007-04-04T21:41:16Z

HSDad: /* Yes */ - Really "NO" Responding to the argument of a "Yes"

==NO==
Aside from God, might makes right. God dictates morality. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

It really depends how you define morality. If morality is what is right and wrong, as set down by God, then of course no morals exists if God does not exist. However, many people would give morality a broader definition. For example, most atheists would say they attempt to hold to some set of morals which they believe to be right. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 16:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
Man is still answerable to his fellow man. A morality dictated by God is replaced by a morality dictated by the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In other words majority rules... might makes right. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ummm.... no? Might makes right is a little over simplistic. Look back in to the origins of religion and you will see that the moral code was based on how best for a community to survive. Fragile communities fragment when people steal, murder, commit adultery, lie, etc. God telling people what is right and wrong... that is might makes right. Morality ''not'' from God is people deciding what is best not just for themselves, but for the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Your view that "God telling people what is right and wrong... is might makes right" reveals a very limited view of God and implies that His motives are those that a selfish man would have were he to be given infinite power. Who would be better qualified to inform creatures who are limited in understanding and moral character than the infinite God who created them? Surely His wisdom is far superior to ours and although He is indeed mighter than we shall ever be, His credentials for informing us of what is right and wrong flow not primarily from His infinite power but rather from His infinite knowledge and perfect moral purity. We would do well to listen to Him. God (I am talking about the God of the Bible here, not the god of one's own understanding or definition) is by definition Holy, Right and Good. These things cannot be defined or have meaning apart from the Creator of the universe. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 17:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

In the absence of God's morality, what incentive does a man have to do anything other than that which gratifies himself? Why should anyone care about the good of the community?--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Examine the golden rule and you will see some form of it in almost every religion and philosophy from Aboriginal beliefs to Zoroastrianism. Life is not necessarily defined by personal hedonism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::It doesn't take much intellect to realize that that which benefits the community benefits the members of that community. Including your straw man hedonist. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-03-22T05:28:05Z

HSDad:

I will do that sir

Aight dawg, my bizzad.

Nice revision to the Eisenhower entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 4 March 2007 (EST)

We don't have a "U.S. President" entry yet. Please create one! (You can do that by entering the term in the "Find" box and, when it is not found, click the link to create one.) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)

You just made a good, subtle edit with respect to "Al Qaeda" and the 9/11 attacks. Well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Good move of Bill Clinton to his real name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Actually, Mr. Schlafly, I think the move was done by Dpbsmith. But, Geo, your edits and template-making-skills have been more than helpful. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:I am pretty sure I moved it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:42, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Tremendous edits! Very well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Welcome to the SYSOP group! Please help block vandals when we reopen registration.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Thank you. Will I go to hell for braking them? [[User:Sane|Sane]]

Geo, Thanks for Blocking user "Gimp". I happened across his edits of "Christian God" and undid them. Vandalism like this needs to be blocked. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 01:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Einstein and rollback ==

A word- on most Wikiprojects the use of the admin roll back toll can be considered rude when not dealing directly with vandalism or disruption. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Okay. [[User:Sane|Sane]]

== Mexico ==

Try clicking on the link you gave me, it redirects to a page called "404.shtml". --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:31, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Geo ==

I see that you mentioned you were going to unblock Oedipus Rex. I don't know what he posted but certainly his user id. is suspect, and the person who blocked rarely blocks anyone. Are you sure you were able to review deleted pages that might not show up any longer on "Revised Changes"? I'd recommend being cautious about unblocking someone blocked for obscenity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking ==

Click on the page where you would normally block the user, there should be a link there to an "unblock" form. Click on that and fill it out. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Is your unblocking of Koronus temporary or permanent? He vandalized many pages a week ago, including the placement of an obscene image on my User Page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Never mind, I see what you've done. Cool. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Block times ==

If an editor's behavior is so bad that you don't want them to edit ever again, there's no need to do something like a year block, just do an indefinite block. Meanwhile, on most Wikis I'm a member of, deliberately temporary blocks for first offenders are generally much shorter, ranging from about 8 hours to 1 week depending on the project and severity of the offense. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I'd say an infinite ban after parole is broken. I'm for being lenient and giving second chances, but we'll need to have a lot of people watching for vandals. My hope is that most people will just forget if they aren't serious about helping.
I think if we do institute a parole policy there should be some way to mark people on parole so that if they commit a violation (say, something they write needs rollback) the sysop doing this can see and ban them. --[[User:John|John]] 23:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Sorry ==
One of my students misused the account. It won't happen again. Please see my discussion page. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:06, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Template for AFD==

Do we have a template to stick on top of articles that are under AFD? Thanks. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:The article is [[Quote mining]] see my AFD [[AFD Quote mining]]. Good luck with this project, enjoyed working with most of you. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 21:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Change to ACLU ==

Hey Geo,
A while ago you suggested that I write to you with my proposed addition to the ACLU article, about what good the ACLU has done. Sorry it's taken so long, but it's included below

----

The ACLU & the Fight Against Racism (make this a section heading, please?)

Along with the [[NAACP]], led at the time by [[Thursgood Marshall]], the ACLU briefed and argued many influential Supreme Court opinions that led to the eradication of legal segregation.<ref>Examples: [[Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483]]</ref> They have continued to defend racial equality since.<ref>http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice</ref> Even recently, the ACLU fought to overturn prohibitions against renting buildings to immigrants<ref>http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/ss/news082206_3.htm</ref>

----

Additionally, you really need to edit out the language indicating that the author of the Dover case, Judge Jones, relied on a court opinion that was reversed (the ''Cobb'' case). First, I'm a Georgian so I know firsthand about the case. The appeal was actually dropped, leaving the pro-evolution lower court holding intact.[http://www.nebscience.org/cobb.html]

Second, I'm a law student, so I know that "vacated and remanded" means "come back with more info, we can't decide this," while "reversed" means "Lower Court, you were wrong." Equating the two sends the message that the higher court indicated that the lower court's pro-evolution Cobb opinion was wrongly decided; despite your personal feelings, no high court has said so, and the case was dropped.

--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for adding the Racism section!!

: On the "vacate" thing, two points.

: First of all, note that the appeal was dropped, discontinuing appellate review. I cited to it above, you can see the website for yourself. So that renders moot the distinction between "reverse" and "vacate."

: Second, the difference between is plain from any Black's Law Dictionary. Vacate & Remand means to nullify the judgment pending renewed appellate review, and this action, importantly, '''passes no judgment "on the merits" of the lower court's opinion.''' Reversal explicitly passes judgment on the merits. The line in the ACLU article as it stands suggests that the higher court reviewed the lower court's opinion "on the merits" and disagreed, which it did not. It simply barred enforcement of the judgment until the appeal was completed, based on an incomplete list of trial docs.

: The "on the merits" distinction is critical. While you can no longer enforce a judgment that's been vacated, that does not necessarily imply that the lower court opinion is no longer ''good law.'' Depending on the procedural posture, it may still be good law. Check the case, and you'll see that the higher court intended it to still be good law.

: Oh, and aside from that, I think the unbiased nature of the article remains highly in doubt. First off, there is no "gay agenda" anymore than there is a "black agenda" or a "female agenda" - none of those groups are unified political entities, and suggesting otherwise is ridiculous. I think "agenda" should be stricken from the topic heading, to avoid sounding too pejorative.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
(I'm adding this here as it was mentioned I should over in the ACLU/talk page.) The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 08:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Adding a link to the opinion, which '''does''' disprove the part of the ACLU article that I've consistently told you is wrong, does not excuse the continued presence of false and misleading statements in the body of the article. I still recommend you strike the statements, or modify them. I'll help you draft them if you want.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mainpage, "Articles to be improved" ==

Why don't you just link directly to the category from the main page via [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement|Articles to be improved]]? Would make more sense than pointing at a placeholder article that is in the category for no reason... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== My proposed ACLU Establishment Clause revision, as asked ==

A example of ACLU litigation regarding the Establishment Clause was ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist.'', 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html</ref> , also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting teachers from teaching [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that evolution was "theory, not fact."<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist.,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref>

In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] noted the case ''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', which had previously invalidated "warning labels" placed on Cobb County textbooks, stating that evolution is "theory, not fact." Jones came to this same conclusion himself, relying on the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and applying the [[reasonable student standard]] that he applied in his analysis of the Dover case itself.<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The Judge uses this reasoning as one step towards his conclusion, and cites ''Selman'' and other Supreme Court cases as backing up his own affirmation of the ''Selman'' holding.<ref>''See Kitzmiller'', 400 F. Supp. 2d at 723-24.</ref>

[[Judge John E. Jones]] has been accused of copying heavily from the ALCU's briefs by the [[Discovery Institute]], an institution that filed ''amicus curiae'' briefs in the case.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News</ref> The allegation is a partial truth.<ref>This is true with regards to Judge Jones' statements in the early parts of the opinion manifesting his agreement with the ACLU's briefs, but the legal reasoning of the case - constituting the bulk of the opinion - is all original. ''See generally Kitzmiller'', 400 F.Supp.2d at 707.</ref>The judge also ordered costs for the plaintiff, in accord with [[civil procedure]] protocol, totalling over $2 million.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

----

I've come to these conclusions based on close reading of the case. I deleted the line about preventing appeal - it's not in the opinion - and I removed the line about ''Selman'' being vacated, since it seems to me unnecessary since it's only one of a few cites. Note that none of this is opinion. It's all fact. For example, if you doubt my change to the wording of the Discovery Institute's "90% plagiarized" comment, I suggest you read the whole opinion.

If you have a problem with any of this, feel free to discuss it with me over e-mail (ames@nyu.edu) or on this page, or on my page. I'd rather you edit this as you see fit than toss it all out :-) !--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: So...?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I'm having image upload troubles; If it's not a hassle, could you please upload the image [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Choco_chip_cookie.jpg here] and let me know where you put it? I want to use it in the welcome template. Thanks! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Fire in the Reichstag ==
This page is protected so you will have to edit it yourself. The circumstances of the fire in the Reichstag are still contested. Its not clear if the Nazis put it on fire themself or if Maarten van der Lubbe actually did it as the Nazis claimed. However the fire gave Hitler the opportunity to obtain dictatorial powers by an emergency law. You might want to say that this ended the Weimar Republic. But Hitler was already Chancellor at that point, and he wasn't president, yet. The statement that he put the Reichstag on fire to end the republic is too simplistic. You either remove it, or give more background. Namely, that Hitler was already appointed chancellor, that the fire led to emergency laws which effectively made an end to parliamentary democracy, and that he later, when president Hindenburg died, also assumed the powers of the president. But as the statement as it is now is simplistic can can better be removed. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

== Enjoy ==
Enjoy yourself here since everybody on Wikipedia knows you are a vain useless non contributor. [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 01:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Hows teh arb cabal? [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Conservapedia ==
Here's a non-obscene version, I hope it meets your standards and is not censored like most non-Conservative content. *edit: ugh, formatting problems, sorry*

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on [[Conservapedia]]. Please add to this.

1. Conservapedia condemns the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. despite B.C.E. and C.E. being the recognized standard world-wide. The change was made to not alienate other cultures around the world, since using B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) is supposed to be an international standard, not an American standard only.

2. Conservapedia gives credit to America, Christianity (sometimes radical Christianity and Creationism), and Conservative views, many times forgetting other factors involved, other countries, other religions, and other points of view. On the main page, Conservapedia even says that "Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America". However, often full credit is not due to either Christianity or America, the world does not revolve around Christian Americans.

3. Conservapedia claims it is correcting the Liberal bias found in Wikipedia, yet Wikipedia shows both sides of possible debates in the majority of their articles. Conservapedia on the other hand only includes the arguments for the conservative view, and Christian view. Conservapedia, while claiming to be less biased, includes an article called "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" which slanders Wikipedia in many ways, often giving incorrect information and irrelevant arguments against its articles.

4. Conservapedia lets anyone with a Conservative, Christian point of view to edit their pages, but any edits done from another point of view are removed, while Wikipedia lets anyone from any point of view edit their pages, and payed experts and scientists edit and make changes to keep the information extremely accurate.

5. Conservapedia claims that twice as many Americans identify themselves as Conservative compared to Liveral, while three times as many editors identify themselves as Liveral as compared to Conservative on Wikipedia. However, the fact that 2/3 of Americans are Conservative does not mean that all information should be adjusted to have an approximate 2/3 bias towards Conservatives, facts are facts. Also, the fact that 3/4 editors on Wikipedia are Liberal means nothing since they are professionals, and are payed to remain unbiased while they make changes with legitimate sources. There is no logic, truth, or relevance in saying that Wikipedia is 6 times more Liberal than the American public, and we also must remember than Wikipedia is meant for the entire world, not just Americans.

6. Conservapedia also condemns Wikipedia for claiming 1.5 million articles, but not all of them being useful. However, Wikipedia never claimed that their articles were educational. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia which contains information about anything and everything.

7. Conservapedia restricts editing of many pages that are considered to be controversial, but some of these pages are purely restricted because visitors with non-conservative, non-christian, or non-american views correct the biased material.

8. The majority of articles about animals include an amazingly short stub of relevant information (generally the animal's description), while the last 80% of the article or so is all about the creation of said animal. In most cases, the creation section of these articles only includes the views of Creationists, and there is little to no mention of Evolution, despite the evidence supporting it.

9. In more than one case, Evolution is also thrown aside and discarded with completely false information about the dating of fossils being incorrect, despite the method of dating fossils (carbon dating) being incredibly accurate. Evolution is generally thrown aside because the fossil evidence proving the Earth's age is at least several million years old (if not several billion), conflicts with the views of Young Earth Creationists. Evolution is also discarded because of the apparent lack of mid-evolution evidence, despite there being many examples of such.

10. References are seldomly cited, even on the most popular of pages, and when they are cited, they often include very little literature and many websites which are statistically much less accurate. The majority of the time, if there are sources, most if not all of the sources will be relating only to the Christian/Creationist, Conservative, American point of view, therefore anything written about the other side of any possible debates are being written with no sources, and the sources used for the Conservative side of the debate are almost always extremely biased.

11. On the main page, the Conservapedia claims that it includes 4,700 educational articles that are student-friendly. However, the majority of the articles are extremely short stubs with few to no references that show only a single point of view. Also, the majority of the articles are written with poor grammar and a low grade reading level, which is hardly appropriate for student use.

12. Conservapedia has since edited the following statement which was included on the main page: "Conservapedia has over 4,100 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, including more than 350 lectures and term lists." However, to claim that Conservapedia is scientific when it often states that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect solely because "there is no evidence" or that it's "just a theory" despite fossil evidence and many animals, including humans backing up this theory, is very unscientific.

13. Conservapedia also displays is bias through the use of American spelling of words only, and in fact points out that Wikipedia uses the "foreign" spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. This is true, however the English language was derived in England - where the spelling of words most certainly is correct if they invented the language. The so called "foreign" spelling of English words on Wikipedia is in fact correct for the rest of the world, and it should not have to cater to any country which uses different spelling which is in fact an altered version of the original, correct, English language. The fact that Wikipedia redirects to the original English spelling of American words shows that they are serving the entire world, and it is in fact conveniant for everyone in this case.

14. Articles such as the one on Kangaroos, and the one on Dinosaurs have ridiculous claims which are used solely to support the Young Earth Creationist view. For example, the article states that from the Origins Theory Model that Kangaroos originated in the Middle East. However, Kangaroos would have had absolutely no way of travelling as far as they would need to during Pangea to end up in Australia, and even moreso after Pangea. Kangaroos can only live in a certain climate, and it is physically impossible for them to have originated in the Middle East. The only references are to Christian and Creationist websites, which are extremely biased and try as hard as they can to prove that their ideas are the one and only correct ones. The article on dinosaurs is similar, and has very little about dinosaurs living millions of years ago. Instead, the article focuses on how creationists believe that fossil evidence is incorrect because of dating methods (even though this is physically impossible to be incorrect, since carbon dating is extremely precise). There are no references citing where these fossil records could possibly be proven wrong in any way, and even mentions that the Young Earth Creationists believe this primarily because of biblical sources, which can hardly be used as a reference. Once again the only other references cite Creationist and Christian websites only. There is absolutely no mention of even the possibility of an ice age, a meteor, or anything else relevant, it is purely talk about Creationism, and to try and support its claims it says there is even a possibility that these dinosaurs still live on Earth without us seeing them (even with satellite technology somehow).

15. There are many more examples of these biased articles, all you have to do is look around. I encourage others who are outraged at the complete inaccuracy of these articles, and complete lack of anything even remotely non-Christian, non-Creationist, non-Conservative, and non-American, to add more examples to this list to show that Conservapedia is much more biased than Wikipedia, which it is attempting to "fix".

== Note on item 5. of the list on bias ==
Conservapedia observed correctly there are about twice as many conservatives than liberals in the American population. If you would have followed the link to the poll, you would have found that Conservapedia, or Aschlafly, forgot to mention the moderates. 2/5 th of all Americans are moderate, 1/3 conservative, and 1/5th liberals (and the remaining 1/15th have no opinion, apparently). So a ratio of 2:1 conservatices vs liberals, does not mean that 2/3rd are conservative. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007 20:45 (AEST)
::The ratio is completely irrelevant. The point is, facts are facts, and Wikipedia and Conservapedia should not be attempting to cater to a particular preference of the majority of Americans. Especially when the articles are available globally.--[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::: If the ratio are irrelevant, why do we use them. It just make us look bad, like we fudge numbers as we please. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007 10:30 (AEST)
:::: I'm not sure why Conservapedia tried to use them to discredit Wikipedia, ask the creator. Either way, using statistics in that way, whether correct or not, is misleading and irrelevant. It proves absolutely nothing. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well, it is also not true that more Americans are conservative than liberal. Most Americans are pro-choice, over half of all Americans think that gays should be granted some kind of partnership rights, most Americans support social security, most Americans trust Democrats more on issues such as education, economics. In most recent polls more Americans trust Democras on national security issues than they do Republicans. And if we define conservativism the way that this site does, than it represents a very small minority of American opinion.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive ==

Your participation would be welcomed at the newly created [[Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive]]. Please contact me with any questions, I think this can be a great idea! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Question about edits ==

Hey, I didn't get a reply on the abuse page so I wanted to run this by you... since i think you're the one that archived it"

I'll be honest, I can't tell if [[User:Pwaynes]] is editing in good faith or is a subtle vandal. Here they are in full [2] and here are some of his edits:

In [[Democratic Party]]: "Historically, however, the Democrats have neglected national defense, leaving America weaker."

In [[women]] putting quotes around "Christian" churches that believe women should not have to submit to their husbands.

In [[Barack Obama]]: "Commentators have noted that he has many strikes against him in the eyes of the American people. He is black, and no black person has ever held such responsibility. Also, his first name sounds like Osama, and his middle name is Hussein, calling to mind the two most evil terrorists of modern times."

In [[Bill Clinton]]: Removing the fact that Clinton was never charged in the whitewater scandal. (He also removed the fact that GWB didn't receive a majority or a plurality of the vote in 2000 but that was irrelevant anyway).

In [[censorship]]: "and is often justified as the material in question is usual obscene, pornographic, satanic, or otherwise harmful."

In [[George H.W. Bush]]: "The Bush dynasty is generally considered to be one of the greatest american political families, along with the Adams. This is in contrast to the irresponsible and wreckless Kennedy family."

These statements are all unsourced... as the bias implicated is opposed to my bias but possibly in line with the website, I leave it up to you to decide if these are in good faith. Myk 18:03, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Since I reported this:

In [[New York(state)]] : "It is a widely recognized liberal hotbed."

In [[Pachactui]] : Pachactui is a fictional Japanese Pokemon. He is a yellow, electric, mouse-like creature, and is known for shouting "Pachactui!" OK... this is definitely vandalism as he is clearly referencing Pikachu. Still, I would like to know if the others are vandalism also so I know what to report.

Anyways... all of his edits are of the same tone. Were this wikipedia, I would have no qualms about reverting 90% of his edits... but maybe that is my liberal bias. What is Conservapedia's stance on these edits? Oh, and he's removed the stub tags on every one of the articles that has had them. Myk 21:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Your Hitler edit ==
Sorry to say this, but your last Hitler display a rather naive and erroneous understanding of the history of the 3rd Reich. As the article is now, you can better revert it to the version from a few days ago. Even though it is very short, it manages to mispresent a lot of things. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 10:00 (AEST)

: Thanks for unlocking. But I am not sure how to fix it. It is just too much. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March, 18:00 (AEST)

==Anarchocapitalism==

Why did you delete the article? It's a legitimate entry. It is an economic belief that is fairly widespread within Libertarian circles. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Your reversal of the re-direction was very correct, btw. I took out some of the bias/inaccuracy, and left it as a stub. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You didn't. The user in question definitely went too far. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

God

2007-03-22T05:04:14Z

HSDad: Undo revision 56521 by Special:Contributions/Gimp (User talk:Gimp)

The term '''god''' is applied to a deitic being that is worshipped as part of a theistic belief system. Monotheistic religions are the most common and include Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

==The Christian God==

According to Christian teaching, God is the creator of the universe. Christianity has understood since about the fourth century that God is a trinity comprised of the [[Father]], the [[Jesus Christ|Son]], and the [[Holy Spirit]]. His [[creation]] of man is described in the [[Book of Genesis]] in the [[Bible]]. It is written in the Bible that a belief in God (specifically, belief in [[Jesus Christ]] as one's personal lord and savior) is a necessary condition to go to [[heaven]] (rather than [[hell]]) in the afterlife.

Common powers attributed to the Christian God include [[omnipotence]] (the ability to do anything), [[omniscience]] (the ability to know anything), and [[omnipresence]] (the ability to be everywhere at once). Many believers in this God also believe that he eternally punishes the wicked in [[hell]] and eternally rewards the righteous in [[heaven]]. While God is said to be unique, the Old Testament in fact mentions 'other gods' constantly.

==Notes==

It is claimed that [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], and [[Judaism]] worship the same God in different ways. This claim is regarded by some as a way to convert Jews and Christians to Islam, since it supports the idea that Abrahamic religion has "grown" from Judaism to Christianity to Islam.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm</ref> However, many are skeptical of this idea.<ref>http://www.letusreason.org/Islam6.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Religion]]

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-03-20T14:34:22Z

HSDad:

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

So - god is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-03-20T14:27:46Z

HSDad: Argument is a red herring and we are missing the IMPORTANT point.

Bible

2007-03-17T01:05:36Z

HSDad: /* English */ - Link contained images which were not fit for a "family friendly" site

[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Holy Bible, opened to the Book of Isaiah.]]
The '''Bible''', or the '''Holy Scriptures''', is the collection of texts sacred to [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], and consists of two parts: the thirty-nine books of the Jewish faith known as the '''Tanakh''', or the [[Old Testament]]; and the twenty-seven books and letters of the [[New Testament]] of the Christian faith. Originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the Bible has been translated in more than two thousand languages; in terms of sales and distribution the Bible is the most-widely distributed, largest-selling book in history; the over-all influence and impact the Bible has had on literature, culture, and history is beyond calculation.

==Name==
The word "Bible" had its origins in the Greek word ''biblos'', meaning ''book''. The ancient Phoenician seaport of [[Byblos]] was so-named as a result of the trade and manufacture of papyrus and writing-related material, and the growth of Christianity by the 2nd century, A.D. led to an outpouring of the Scriptures on papyrus scrolls, so much so that during this time the early Christians began calling them by the Latin term ''la Biblia'', "the Books". (Unger, pg 144)

==Books of the Bible==
===The Old Testament===
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament layout
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Christian
|-
|Genesis
|Genesis
|-
|Exodus
|Exodus
|-
|Leviticus
|Leviticus
|-
|Numbers
|Numbers
|-
|Deuteronomy
|Deuteronomy
|-
|Joshua
|Joshua
|-
|1st Samuel
|Judges
|-
|2nd Samuel
|Ruth
|-
|1st Kings
|1st Samuel
|-
|2nd Kings
|2nd Samuel
|-
|Isaiah
|1st Kings
|-
|Jeremiah
|2nd Kings
|-
|Ezekiel
|1st Chronicles
|-
|The Minor Prophets
|2nd Chronicles
|-
|Psalms
|Ezra
|-
|Proverbs
|Nehemiah
|-
|Job
|Esther
|-
|Song of Songs
|Job
|-
|Ruth
|Psalms
|-
|Lamentations
|Proverbs
|-
|Ecclesiastes
|Ecclesiastes
|-
|Esther
|Song of Solomon
|-
|Daniel
|Isaiah
|-
|Ezra
|Jeremiah
|-
|Chronicles
|Lamentations
|-
|Jeremiah
|Ezekiel
|-
|Ezekiel
|Daniel
|-
|
|The Minor Prophets
|}
The [[Old Testament]], also called the [[Hebrew Bible]] or Tanakh, consists of thirty-nine books. The books themselves were originally written in [[Hebrew]], and later on in the [[Aramaic]] language of Palestine; the Greek language version written after the conquest of [[Alexander the Great]] is known as the [[Septuagint]]. [[Melito]], a bishop of [[Sardis]] in [[Lydia]] (in what is now [[Turkey]]), is said to have coined the phrase ''Old Testament'' about A.D. 170. The Old Testament is divided in three parts (hence, "Tanakh") within the Jewish community: the [[Torah]] ("Law"), or [[Pentateuch]], the five books of [[Moses]]; [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets"), and [[Ketuvim]] ("Writings,” or [[Hagiographa]]). Here the arrangement of the books differs somewhat from the Old Testament as used by Christians, however the actual writing of each book remains the same.

====Torah====
The Five books of Moses, in their Hebrew and English names:
*Bereisheet ("in the beginning"), or [[Genesis]]
*Shemot (“names”), or [[Exodus]]
*Vayikra (“and God called”), or [[Leviticus]]
*Bemidbar (“in the Wilderness”), or [[Numbers]]
*Devarim (“words”), or [[Deuteronomy]]

The first eleven chapters of ''Genesis'' provide the account of the [[Creation]], the history of God's early relationship with humanity, and the [[Deluge]] of [[Noah]]. The remaining thirty-nine chapters detail the account of God's covenant with the early Hebrew nation, led by the patriarchs [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]] (or Israel), and one of Jacob's children, [[Joseph]]. It tells the beginnings of God's chosen people, of how God commanded Abraham to leave his family and home to settle in the land of [[Canaan]], and how the Children of Israel later moved to Egypt. The remainder of the Torah, beginning with ''Exodus'', tells the story of the great Hebrew leader [[Moses]], and of the Hebrews through their sojourn and slavery in Egypt, their escape from bondage, and their wanderings in the desert until they finally enter the Promised Land.

====Nevi'im====
The [[Nevi'im]] is the story of the rise toward, and ultimately reaching, the Hebrew monarchy; the sad period of anarchy and revolt leading to the division into the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel; and the prophets who judged the kings of both in God's name. It ends with the conquest of both kingdoms and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Minor Prophets are considered a single book in the Nevi'um; in Christianity they have been split into twelve separate books and named for their authors.
* [[Joshua]]
* [[Judges]]
* [[Books of Samuel]]
* [[Books of Kings]]
* [[Isaiah]]
* [[Jeremiah]]
* [[Ezekiel]]
* [[The Minor Prophets]]
**[[Hosea]]
** [[Joel]]
** [[Amos]]
** [[Obadiah]]
** [[Jonah]]
** [[Micah]]
** [[Nahum]]
** [[Habakkuk]]
** [[Zephaniah]]
** [[Haggai]]
** [[Zechariah]]
** [[Malachi]]

====Ketuvim====
The [[Ketuvim]], or "Writings," contain lyrical poetry, philosophical reflections on life, and the writings of the prophets and other Jewish leaders during the exile in Babylon.
* [[Psalms]]
* [[Proverbs]]
* [[Book of Job]]
* [[Song of Songs]], also called [[Song of Solomon]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Book of Ruth]]
* [[Lamentations]]
* [[Ecclesiastes]]
* [[Esther]]
* [[Daniel]]
* [[Ezra]], divided into the two books of Ezra and [[Nehemiah]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Books of Chronicles]]

[[David]] has been named as the author of the ''Psalms''; [[Solomon]] is believed to have written ''Song of Songs'' in his youth, the ''Proverbs'' in his prime, and ''Ecclesiastes'' during his old age. The prophet [[Jeremiah]] is thought to have written the aptly-named ''Lamentations'' at the beginning of the exile in Babylon. The ''Book of Ruth'' is the only biblical book that centers entirely on a non-Jew, a Moabite who married a Jew and became an ancestor of both David and Jesus Christ. ''Esther'' is unique as it is the only book in the Bible not to mention God. Moses is considered to be the author of ''Job''.

===The New Testament===
The [[New Testament]] is a collection of twenty-seven books and letters, written by the early Christian community, and written primarily in [[Greek]]. The emphasis of the New Testament is the life, teachings, and gift of salvation from the central figure of the whole work, Jesus of Nazareth. These books are grouped into the following:

====[[Gospels|The Gospels]]====
The ''Gospels'' contain the history of Jesus. The ''Acts of the Apostles'' are a continuance of the Gospels, documenting the history of the early church, beginning immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection. Of the authors, only Matthew and John had met Jesus; they were among His disciples during His earthly ministry. Mark was a companion of Peter, and his gospel was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. Luke is considered the author of both his gospel and the ''Acts''.
*[[Gospel of Matthew]]
*[[Gospel of Mark]]
*[[Gospel of Luke]]
*[[Gospel of John]]
*[[Acts of the Apostles]]

====[[Pauline Epistles]]====
These are letters written to various early Christian communities by the Apostle Paul.
*[[Epistle to the Romans]]
*[[First Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Epistle to the Galatians]]
*[[Epistle to the Philippians]]
*[[Epistle to Philemon]]
*[[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Epistle to the Ephesians]]
*[[Epistle to the Colossians]]
*[[First Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Second Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Epistle to Titus]]
*[[Epistle to the Hebrews]]

====[[General Epistles]]====
*[[Epistle of James]]
*[[First Epistle of Peter]]
*[[Second Epistle of Peter]]
*[[First Epistle of John]]
*[[Second Epistle of John]]
*[[Third Epistle of John]]
*[[Epistle of Jude]]

====Revelation====
The [[Book of Revelation]] is the last work in the New Testament as well as the whole Bible, written close to A.D. 100 by the [[Apostle John]] during his exile on the Greek island of [[Patmos]]. Revelation is concerned with the condition of the [[Seven Churches of Asia]] before going deeply into a description of the last days prior to the beginning of the [[Millennial Age]].

==History of the Bible==
[[Image:Gutenburg1.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Printers copy of a page from a Gutenberg Bible, printed in Germany about 1469.]]
The oldest books of the Bible are certainly the five books of the Torah and ''Job''. In ''1st Kings'' 6:1, Solomon is stated to have begun building the Temple "''in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt''". It had been established by scholars and historians that Solomon had begun building the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, or 961 B.C., making the [[date of the Exodus]] under Moses to have been 1441 B.C. During the following forty years Moses wrote the Torah and ''Job'', completing them before his death at [[Mt. Nebo]] about 1400 B.C. According to Biblical scholar and historian Robert D. Wilson the Torah as it stands dates from the time of Moses, the five books constitute one continuous work, and was written by a single individual, Moses himself (Wilson, pg 11).

The remaining books of the Old Testament were written at various times since the death of Moses, with ''Malachi'', the last Old Testament book, being written about 455 B.C. During this period each of the books was written and re-written on parchment or papyrus, with the editors taking great care in their work; a single Biblical book hand-written today can take weeks to complete. The older scrolls were disposed of by burial or systematic destruction when worn from normal usage; as a result, the oldest surviving examples of Biblical manuscripts are those which have been carefully preserved either by direct actions of people (such as monasteries), or by removal from forces of decay. Currently, the oldest surviving manuscripts are those found within the caves of Qumran in 1948 and known as the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], dating between 250 B.C. to A.D. 70; the complete ''Isaiah'' scroll of this collection dates to 150 B.C.

Around 200 B.C. the Septuagint, a Greek-language version of the Old Testament, was completed. This was due to the Hellenization of large areas of the Middle East after the conquest of Alexander the Great, making Greek the de-facto language for everyday communications and business. The Septuagint marks the first time in history that the Bible was translated into a foreign language.

===The Apocrypha===
The [[Apocrypha]] was written during the four hundred years between the last book of the Old Testament and the birth of Christ. The term itself comes from the Greek word ''apokruphos'' ("hidden" or "concealed"), and although they have an actual history and literary value, the fourteen books which make up the Apocrypha have been rejected as canonical by both the Jewish faith and most denominations of the Christian church due to historical, geographical, or literal inaccuracies; the teaching of doctrines which contradict inspired Scripture; and a lack of elements and structure which give genuine Scripture its unique characteristic (Unger, pg. 70). The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, among others, include the Apocrypha in their versions of the Bible, considering them to be canonical. The following are the books which are most frequently referred to by the title ''Apocrypha'':
*[[1 Esdras]]
*[[2 Esdras]]
*[[Book of Tobit]]
*[[Book of Judith]]
*[[Book of Wisdom]]
*[[Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach
*[[Book of Baruch]]
*[[Epistle of Jeremy]]
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]
*[[Story of Susanna]]
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]
*[[1 Maccabees]]
*[[2 Maccabees]]
*Plus additions to the Book of Esther

Between 90-95 A.D. the Jewish [[Council of Jemnia]] revised the canon of the Old Testament, ensuring that the books involved conformed to the Torah, were written in the Hebrew language, written in Palestine, and written before 400 B.C. As a result, the Apocrypha was removed from the canon. [http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html]

===Early New Testament history===
In ''1st Timothy'' 5:8 Paul quoted as scripture ''"the laborer is worthy of his hire."'' This line is found nowhere else in the Bible except ''Matthew'' 10:10 and ''Luke'' 5:7. In ''2nd Peter'' 3:15-16, Peter classes Paul's letters with "other scriptures". Both lines are indicative of the writing down and general use of the New Testament prior to A.D. 60 (Halley, pg. 741-742). Spurious "gospels" which are known to have appeared by A.D. 100, make references to the New Testament. [[Clement of Rome]], writing in his own letter to the Corinthians in A.D. 95, refers to ''Matthew'', ''Luke'', ''Corinthians'', ''Hebrews'', ''1st Timothy'', and ''1st Peter'' (Halley, pg. 743).

The oldest surviving New Testament fragment of which there is a reliable date is the John Rylands Fragment (P52)[http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm] of the ''Gospel of John'', dating from 117-138 A.D., just decades from when the Gospel was first written. The time span between the writing of the New Testament and the oldest surviving fragments are well under two hundred years. By comparison, Greek classics such as Herodotus, Plato, Euripides, and Homer have a time span well over a thousand years each between the date of the oldest known fragment of writing and the time period they were first written.

===The Vulgate===
[[Jerome]], a Latin scholar deeply interested in the study of the Scriptures, completed the second edition of the Bible in the Latin language. The ''[[Vulgate]]'' was meant to replace the inaccuracies of the earlier ''[[Vetus Latina]]'', the standard Bible of the early Catholic Church. Jerome had moved to Jerusalem in 382, and set to work on what eventually became a fresh translation of the Bible from the Greek of the ''Septuagint'' to translating the New Testament into Latin; from 390-405 he decided to re-translate his Old Testament directly from the Hebrew then in use by the Jewish community. The ''Vulgate'' had a marked influence in church history, and remained the standard Latin Bible in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries; such was the length of time in use that it was finally replaced by the ''[[Nova Vulgata]]'' in 1979.

===Gutenberg's Bible===
[[Johannes Gutenberg]] of [[Mainz]], [[Germany]] invented the first mechanical printing press in 1448. His machine consisted of a large press which when cranked down, pressed a sheet of paper upon a platform in which were set thousands of inked metal letter typefaces (called "movable type"), set in place to read for a particular page. The first book in history printed by this method was the [[Gutenberg Bible]], in the ''Vulgate'' version, of which 180 were printed, and approximately 50 survive today in varying conditions around the world. The Gutenberg Bible marked another first: Bibles could be mass produced to get into the hands of many more people at a lower cost than if they were printed by hand.

===Tyndale===
During the middle of the 16th century there was a need to get the Bible directly into the hands of the common man; prior to that the Bible was restricted to readings in the Church alone. The Reformers were a group of people who were shocked at the differences between what the Roman Catholic Church was practicing as opposed to what the Bible stated can or cannot be done (this was one of the causes of the [[Reformation]]). At great cost to themselves, the Reformers began the work of translating the Bible in the various languages of Europe; the printing press would ensure the newly-translated Bibles would be mass-produced.

[[William Tyndale]] was committed to getting the Bible in the hands of his English countrymen. Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale declared that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even an ordinary farmer to know more about the Scriptures than the Pope. [http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/tyndale.htm] Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was completed by 1525, by April, 1526, 6,000 copies were printed and delivered to England. Official opposition led to the destruction of most of them. Tyndale was arrested and charged with heresy for his efforts on May 21, 1536, and was executed the following year. His efforts at translating the Bible led to the Matthews and Bishop's Bibles, then finally to the [[King James Version]], where ninety percent of the text is the result of Tyndale.

===King James Version===
[[Image:E-sword.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The internet has increased the availability of the Bible world-wide. Shown here is a screenshot to E-Sword, a freely-downloadable Bible study program. [http://www.e-sword.net] (Rick Meyers, 2007)]]
In 1601 King [[James I]] selected forty-seven of the ablest scholars in England to undertake the creation of a standard Bible in English, based upon careful translations of the Masoretic Text used by the Jewish community, and the best Greek translations (especially the ''[[Textus Receptus]]'') then available. The scholars were divided into six committees in Oxford, Westminster, and Cambridge, with each scholar had dedicating himself to doing a portion of the Bible, often consulting each other to check the flow and harmony of the work in progress. The result was the 1611 [[King James]], or Authorized, Version.

The effects of the King James Version were profound. Using less than 2,500 different words in it's vocabulary, this Bible was written in a poetic style matched by few. The work influenced the writings of [[Shakespeare]]. [[John Milton]] has numerous images taken from this Bible in his ''[[Paradise Lost]]''. The direct style of writing caused it to be easily available to the common man. Poets and writers, such as [[Herman Melville]], [[Walt Whitman]], [[Emily Dickinson]] and many others were deeply inspired by it. It had altered the course of English history, with England growing to a world power since the book's publication; when asked by a visiting dignitary what made England great, Queen Victoria pulled out her copy of the Bible and declared "This is the secret of England's greatness." [http://www.mindspring.com/~je_cobb/presidentindex.html]

Today, the Bible is available in many versions across the English-speaking world, and has been translated into nearly every language on Earth, including the current translation into a recently-created language from the fictional world of [[Star Trek]], [[Klingon]]. [http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project] The past two decades saw the emergence of [[internet]] use; the creation of the Bible as a software program was inevitable, and several, such as E-Sword and Theophilos, are available at no cost with a wealth of Bible-study material as well.

==References==
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1966).
*Halley, Henry H. ''Halley's Bible Handbook'', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965).
*Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926).

==External links==
===Bible societies ===
*[http://www.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society]
*[http://www.biblesociety.org/ United Bible Society]
*[http://www.ibs.org/ The International Bible Society (New York/Colorado Springs)]
*[http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer World Bible Translation Center]
*[http://www.wycliffe.org/home.htm Wycliffe Bible Translators]

===Online, internet, and downloadable Bibles===
====Hebrew====
* [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm Hebrew-English Bible] ([[Jewish Publication Society of America|JPS]] 1917 translation; includes Hebrew audio)
* [http://tanakhml2.alacartejava.net/cocoon/tanakhml/d13.php2xml?sfr=1&prq=1&pnt=tru&acc=tru&dia=tru&enc=heb XML Hebrew-English (KJV) Bible]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Hebrew_OT/ Old Testament in Hebrew]

====Latin====
* [http://www.LatinVulgate.com/ Latin Vulgate] — Latin Vulgate with parallel Douay-Rheims and King James English translations
* [http://www.sacredbible.org/ SacredBible.org] — Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Vulgate/ Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.)]

====English====
* [http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html AudioBible] — Audio version of the King James Version.
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/ Blue Letter Bible] — On-line interactive reference library continuously updated from the teachings and commentaries of selected pastors and teachers who hold to the conservative, historical Christian faith.
* [http://www.e-sword.net E-sword] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.theophilos.sk/ Theophilos Bible program]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/ASB/ American Standard Version].
* [http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ English Standard Version] from Good News/Crossway (the publisher).
* [http://www.verselink.org/ King James Version with dictionary].
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/KJV/ King James Version].
* [http://www.newlivingtranslation.com New Living Translation]
* [http://bible.oremus.org/ New Revised Standard Version].
* [http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm New World Translation] of the Holy Scriptures.
* [http://www.europepourchrist.org/biblesite/WEB/ World English Bible].
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/ LDS King James Version] with audio, extensive commentary and cross-references.
* [http://www.dynamicbible.com/ King James Version built using AJAX technologies], with Strongs and Greek Morphological Codes by Robinson.
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index The Hypertext Bible] with side-by-side translations in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the [[Internet Sacred Text Archive]]
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Bible Gateway at GospelCom.net] text search in any one of many translations.
* [http://www.biblereadthrough.com/ Bible Read-Through] — read through the Bible in a year aid.
* [http://www.TheFreeBible.com/ TheFreeBible.com] Bible software downloads
* [http://www.scripture4all.org/ Interlinear (word-by-word) translation of the Christian Bible] Hebrew and Koine Greek
* [http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic_nt_resources.htm Aramaic New Testament resources]
* [http://www.spcm.org/en/versions.php Over 40 versions of the Bible]
* [http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/Bibletranslationsandstudies.html Eastern and Western Armenian Bible]
* [http://www.bible9.com/ Online Bible (King James Version & Old Testament)]
* [http://www.spcm.org/LSG_FR/ Bible — Louis Segond de 1910]
* [http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer?pagename=downloads_spanish Spanish Bible] PDT version
* [http://www.latinvulgate.com/christverse.aspx Complete Sayings of Christ]
* [http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/ Crosswalk.com Parallel Bible]
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html#verse Blue Letter Bible]

====Turkish====
* [http://www.incil.info Turkish Bible] (Turkish Old and New Testament)

====Others====
* [http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html Bible Timeline]
* [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Torah_880.htm?OVRAW=Torah&OVKEY=torah&OVMTC=standard My Jewish Learning.com]
* [http://search.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society] to search NASB, KJV, CEV, ASV and others.
* [http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html University of Virginia Library] KJV word proximity search.
* [http://www.1enormousidea.com/Default.aspx?tabid=42 Many translations in English, verse by verse]
* [http://www.bible-marathi.com Nava Karar] NT Translation from Greek to Marathi
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html Gender-neutral Bible translations].
* [http://www.evangelicalbible.com/why.htm Word-for-Word vs.Thought-for-Thought translation] Outlines the difference between formal and dynamic equivalent translation philosopy.
* [http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible].

===Commentaries and analysis===
* [http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryID=411&rsid=478 Biblical History], The Jewish History Resource Center — Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
* [http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=63255 Judaica Press Translation] — online Jewish translation of the Tanakh.
* [http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_1.htm Reading and Understanding the Bible].
* [http://en.bibleinfo.com/ Source for Bible Answers].
* [http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp Amazing Facts Bible Studies].
* [http://www.iishj.org/images/Bible.pdf Learning Bible Today] — a historical approach the Bible.
* [http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/gill/ John Gill's Exposition of the Bible] — verse by verse commentary.
* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html/ Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible] — unabridged.
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Topical References]
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia]

===Wikis===
* [http://bible.tmtm.com BibleWiki]
* [http://wikible.org Wikible]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Religion]]